CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 655Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsMathematics Education and PedagogyMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques

Task-Related Verbal Interaction and Mathematics Learning in Small Groups

Webb, Noreen M.·1991·Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
DOI 10.2307/749186
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The past fifteen years have shown a resurgence of interest in small-group, peer-directed learning in the classroom. This article reviews and analyzes the research linking task-related verbal interaction to learning in small groups in mathematics classrooms, as well as factors that have been shown to predict peer interaction in mathematics groups, and discusses strategies for shaping group interaction. Critical features of group interaction include the level of elaboration of help given and received and the responsiveness of help to the needs of students. Important predictors of group interaction included student ability, gender and personality, and group composition on ability and gender. Possible strategies for promoting effective small-group interaction include using certain group compositions, altering the reward structure, providing training in desirable verbal behavior, and structuring the group activity to require students to give explanations to each other.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/749186

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Giving elaborate explanations correlates positively with student achievement.

    “This line of research demonstrated that giving elaborate explanations (i.e., an explanation that contains a reason why the problem should be solved in a certain way) correlates positively with student achievement, whereas giving explanations without an elaboration (i.e., telling someone the answer without giving a clarification) does not (Webb 1991).”

    From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Webb 1991

  • When a learner needs other learners for the collaborative task to be carried out successfully, the communication and coordination processes are necessary for learning and can facilitate learning, imposing effective (germane) cognitive load.

    “In contrast, when a learner in that same group needs other learners for the collaborative task to be carried out successfully, the communication and coordination processes are necessary for learning and can facilitate learning (i.e., giving elaborate explanations; Webb 1991), imposing effective (i.e., germane) cognitive load.”

    From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Webb 1991

  • Giving explanations without an elaboration does not correlate positively with student achievement.

    “This line of research demonstrated that giving elaborate explanations (i.e., an explanation that contains a reason why the problem should be solved in a certain way) correlates positively with student achievement, whereas giving explanations without an elaboration (i.e., telling someone the answer without giving a clarification) does not (Webb 1991).”

    From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Webb 1991

  • When a medium-ability student explains his or her reasoning to a high-ability student, this may induce germane load for the medium-ability student because the elaboration and reorganization of cognitive schemas stimulated by the explanation benefit his or her learning.

    “When a medium-ability student, for example, tries to explain his or her reasoning to a high-ability student, this may induce germane load on the part of the medium-ability student because the elaboration and reorganization of cognitive schemas stimulated by the explanation are beneficial to his/her learning process (Webb 1991).”

    From Making the Black Box of Collaborative Learning Transparent: Combining Process-Oriented and Cognitive Load Approaches (2010) · cites this paper as Webb 1991

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Webb, N. M.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Webb, Noreen M.
ORCID
Webb, Noreen M.
Venue
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
Publisher
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Published
1991-11
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
366
ISSN
0021-8251 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/749186
OpenAlex
W1989411625
Cited by
655
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 24
FWCI
7.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Applied Mathematics › Mathematics Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Keywords
small group learning, peer interaction, verbal interaction, mathematics learning, group composition, ability grouping, gender differences, personality, reward structure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review